Tom Rhoads
116 matches · 55W–61L · seasons 2019–2026
Captains: add Tom Rhoads to your scout list and get a weekly note on what they did. Create a free account to start one.
Match history116 matches
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
7-6, 6-2
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
5-7, 2-6
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-4, 6-1
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
2-6, 7-6, 0-1
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-3, 6-2
Teams113 teams · 2020–2027
Alley Cats ( Rhoads)
Good Vibrations (Rhoads)
Rhoads/Add-Ins (F)
Rhoads/Full Metal Racquets (F)
Rhoads/Internetters (F)
Rhoads/Set2Win (F)
40-Love (Rhoads)
Chargers - Rhoads/Russo
Hit Men - Rhoads
Rhoads/65+Over/6.0M
Rhoads/Add-Ins (F)
Rhoads/Add-Ins (S)
Rhoads/Full Metal Racquet (F)
Rhoads/Full Metal Racquets (S)
Rhoads/Internetters (F)
Rhoads/Internetters (S)
Rhoads/Set2Win (F)
Rhoads/Set2Win (S)
STL/Rhoads/65&Over7.0M
STL/Rhoads/Alley Cats/55&Over6.0M
STL/Rhoads/Good Vibrations/55&Over7.0M
Over timerating by season, and how you rank
By level5 levels played
3.0
55.9%
19W–15L · 51.8% of games
3.5
41.7%
10W–14L · 46.2% of games
6.0
54.5%
6W–5L · 53.8% of games
7.0
51.6%
16W–15L · 49.8% of games
6.0mixed
25%
4W–12L · 40.2% of games
Games won matters more than matches won — NTRP adjusts on margins.
By lineusually #3 Doubles, 48% of the time
#3 Doubles
48%
56 matches
#1 Doubles
28%
33 matches
#2 Doubles
23%
27 matches
How often, across every team and every match we hold — including ones that do not count toward a rating. Advanced stats has a court-position table too, and it answers a different question: how well you do there, over matches that count. A team’s own page shows how that one team uses you.
Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.
The mark of great sportsmen is not how good they are at their best, but how good they are at their worst.